This is ridiculous

[NWLB]

I might bump them above USC, but not above OSU, and that is give or take a million factors in a hypothetical set of games.

Let me just pause to note that I'm not picking fights or being obnoxiously stubborn here. (intentionally that is.) I like the debate.

If you had a playoff, BSU would likely wind up going against an OSU first. You'd have teams seeded, which is another reason I think the playoff system would be pointless. Such an upset win over the Buckeyes might not be enough. I might write the only loss OSU would have, as a fluke, or still not enough to consider Boise better overall. Boise going on to beat a USC team that would be a closer match for the Broncos, doesn't give them enough to change my mind in that case.

[Jacobs4Heisman]

So, if Boise were to be the 9 seed this year, beat whoever was 8, then beat OSU, then beat USC, then beat Florida or Michigan, would you still think OSU was better.

If so, I think you would probably be relatively lonely on that island. You're contradicting yourself a bit. It's obvious that you think the better team wins much more often than not, considering your usage of the word "chance" in the other thread. Don't you think a team that could run through 4 straight top teams in a playoff has proved they are the best team moreso than the other teams?

And that's where we fundamentally differ. I believe that a college football playoff would produce the best team far more often than the system we have now. We have no idea if Boise is better than Florida, or if USC is better than OSU, or if Wisconsin could hang with Lousiville. We'll never know. We don't know how good that undefeated Auburn team was a few years ago. You don't think an undefeated team from the SEC deserves at least a shot to win the title?

I don't see the tragedy in additional inclusion as you do.

[NWLB]

You refer to inclusion, I see no virtue in that, as it is being presented. It is another catch phrase being used to attempt to make a playoff sound like the thing to do.

Again, your perspective keeps a focus on the playoff results, which don't obligate anybody to take them as a divine statement of who is the best. After Boise beats an OSU in the first game, unless you think there would be bye weeks, it isn't as if there is a series of games to validate that the single win was more than a fluke. And that is true of the regular season as it is any playoff. In the end, I'm still looking over the results, and picking the team I consider to have been the best. And that team might not be Boise, or the playoff winner.

I wouldn't be on as lonely an island as you might think. The playoff winner would have a title, to be sure. But again, this isn't about who wins your playoff, it is about who the best team is, and that won't fit into what you are advocating.

[Jacobs4Heisman]

After Boise beats an OSU in the first game, unless you think there would be bye weeks, it isn't as if there is a series of games to validate that the single win was more than a fluke.

Ummmm -- yes there is. The rest of the playoff.

Maybe it wouldn't be perfectly clear who the best team was, but wouldn't it be a lot closer than what we have now? In any situation, the more information you have, the better the decision that can be made. A playoff would give us a ton more information about the top teams in the country.

Right now, the coaches are required by the BCS to vote the winner of the BCS championship game number 1. How can someone as yourself, who is so keen on saying "results be damned, I'll figure out for myself who the best team is", advocate such a system?

[NWLB]

I get your point, but again, coming from the POV that we want to know the best team, you'd have to play OSU and Boise three times or so, to truly validate the idea. That isn't happening, and thus who is best, remains subjective, based on what evidence there is. A single win, might not be enough to do it. Since a single win might come by way of the normal weird happenings which make the game fun to watch. Getting "lucky" doesn't make the team the best. Its part of the line of thought that has greatly lowered my view of BGSU's football team. Three or more of their wins should have been losses.

[Jacobs4Heisman]

I get your point, but again, coming from the POV that we want to know the best team, you'd have to play OSU and Boise three times or so, to truly validate the idea. That isn't happening, and thus who is best, remains subjective, based on what evidence there is. A single win, might not be enough to do it. Since a single win might come by way of the normal weird happenings which make the game fun to watch. Getting "lucky" doesn't make the team the best. Its part of the line of thought that has greatly lowered my view of BGSU's football team. Three or more of their wins should have been losses.

Right, but you didn't answer either of my questions.

And I find it very hard to believe that an inferior team could get "lucky" 4 times in a row against top competition. I suppose it could happen now and again, but it wouldn't be a regular occurence. I would bet it would happen far less than an undefeated team not getting a shot at the title in the current system.

[NWLB]

Plus the fact that the odds are it simply won't happen at all, ever. And if it did happen once in 50 years, the entire system that brings it about, still isn't worth what it effects or destroys to make possible.

So no, it isn't better than what we have now.

The BCS is what it is. That thing is a bowl game, rotated between partner sites. How they select their teams, is based on the set of polls they use. That is their right. They give a title, not a true measure of who is best. So no, I don't have an issue with the BCS mandating the coaches accept the bowl game winner as their title winner. It didn't stop the AP from giving another title to another team which it thought was the best, and from withdrawing from the BCS because of that fact.

I don't claim the BCS is either perfect, nor a measure of the best team either, I never have. But I like it better than the alternative. Better still, I'd rather they go back to a wide-open system and screw the BCS and playoff both.

Curiously that was what more than a few coaches and presidents were saying after last year. So we might actually see a return to the past a long time before we see a change to a playoff. And that would leave me howling with laughter.

[kdog27]

I am temporarily in Oklahoma and I cannot tell you how cool this is. Every morning on the way to work on the radio there is caller after caller saying how bad Boise sucks and how OU is going run right through them. How it is a disservice that they have to play a seventh grade football team blah blah blah. Not a person I have met out here gave Boise a chance.

I have never seen a bar go so quite so fast. Priceless.

[Falconfreak90]

Gonna be a long day at work tomorrow, but this game has been awesome from the very beginning.

Hammb,

I am one tired Falcon this morning but what a great game last night. You are dead on about the ballsy playcalling. I loved watching Boise State go for the win.

kdog,

Keep us updated on the suicide watch. LOL! WAY TO GO BOISE STATE!!!